And now, for part three in our continuing coverage of Radiohead’s new album, here’s some reaction from the Interweb:

Greg Kot (Chicago Tribune Columnist) writes:

“On the first couple of listens, it’s the most song-oriented Radiohead album in years, more focused on melodies than the U.K. band’s post-“Kid A” work.”

Paul Morley of The Guardian’s Observer Music Monthly writes:

“It’s best not to review the new Radiohead album as it’s happening just because it’s happening. Imagine falling into that trap. Imagine making your mind up instantly about various pieces of music just because it somehow suits the occasion. Imagine giving each track stars – for the distribution process, for the promotional tactics, for performance, for sonically matching the alleged historical nature of the occasion, for all round Radioheadness, for doing the job, for levels of dazzle, for basic competence, for the predicament of the musicians tangled up in their own elegant hype, for the sound, for melodies, for Yorke’s voice, for his apparent concerns, for how profound the ideas are, how moving the moment, how cleverly a rhythm or a noise or an effect communicates the idea that there’s no business like the business of change. I might not know for many months how I feel about giving Radiohead £40…”

Pete Paphides of Times Online writes:

“Their attitude to the medium might be one of uncompromising modernity, but Radiohead’s almost quaint belief in the album as an art form is borne out by their dispute with Apple (the absence of their music on iTunes is down to their refusal to allow the sale of individual tracks). In Rainbows compounds their stance. In time you’ll scoot to your favourites on In Rainbows – in particular, the baroque fever-folk of Faust Arp is just, when it all comes down, an endlessly repeatable treat – but taken as a whole, In Rainbows adheres to a loose musical narrative of its own.”

Stereogum has unleased a “Premature Evaluation” thread:

“I payed zero nothing nada for the album. Sounds like Radiohead. But 160 kbps, that’s not good enough. They are actually forcing us to buy the cd, when it comes out.” – Jakob

“What exactly is everyone freaking out about? Is this a new Rainbow album… so the first since 1983? GOD I hope so, I’m a fan of pretty much anything Ronnie James Dio puts his name on.” – dirtyharold

Meanwhile, Rolling Stone went to the source and talked with Radiohead’s Johnny Greenwood:

“What goals did you have for the album itself?
I suppose we wanted to get back slightly to Kid A in that we were spending longer experimenting and trying stuff out — it wasn’t so much of a performance-based thing, like Hail to the Thief. Other than that, it’s the usual thing of turning up with these songs and the pressure is, “Don’t fuck it up, don’t record them badly, don’t do bad arrangements of them, and do them justice.” So that’s what we’ve done.”

Our resident Radiohead expert and hardcore Mets fan writes:

“I really dig the percussion on “Videotape”.
It starts simple, then doubles and doubles and doubles…
It sounds like the unwinding of a video tape.
Lyrically, this is so fitting for the end of this album. “

Myself, I’ve been through it a number of times now and I’m sold that this is a good record. The lyrics ring with depth and move into areas of romance, isolation, and maybe even lust. I think this maybe accessible enough for a casual or prospective fan while stil quite satisfying to (most of) the hardcore fans. (You can’t please all of the self-professed. Someone out there is probably waiting for another “Creep”.) So, I’ll put this to bed by adding that while its greatness can only be measured over time, Radiohead has certainly delivered a more than worthwhile album.

Oh, Thom York updated their blog yesterday.